SET FREE THE ASCENDANCY POINTS (or rework the lab) [New ascension methods/lab rework ideas]

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

If you listen to Chris talk about trading as it relates to new players and how much of the player base even trades "actively," you could never draw the conclusions that you are trying to push.

Well, I totally do.

Because Chris also tells us that over half of new PoE players never get past Normal Brutus.


I can't understand you, dude.

Are you gonna offer up another explanation of why the lab as content and why the enchant system sux so bad for so many? Why in the face of uproar the response from GGG was to add MORE lab?

Was it a whoops?

Magical faeries?

?

I know it's shit that the lab exists the way it does, but disputing why it does with nothing to offer as to another reason, just because that reality doesn't result in much promise of it changing isn't going to help you.

Pretend it's magical faeries and they might magically change it if you want, post silly pics and 'lies, damned lies and statistics' without context if you want, dispute the reality if you want, it won't get you results.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Why would people expect GGG to change the lab and/or the gating of APs behind it?

More to the point, why do people expect a 2,000 post thread of people disliking the lab would prompt GGG to change it?


Look at the design, guys.

Start with trials.
Look at the design, there is a series of gauntlets that need to be navigated, in order to open doors.
In many cases once the gauntlets are navigated and the doors opened, there is a clear run down the middle, avoiding all the gauntlets, at least making most of it avoidable.

Now the lab.
Again, gauntlets that need to be navigated, levers pulled, doors opened, leaving a path that avoids most of the traps and gauntlets.

Gold doors.
A door is locked, to open the door one player needs to go to another zone and come back with a key after running a gauntlet.

Izaro phases.
There is a safe zone before each Izaro phase where a player can stand while another player completes the Izaro encounter. After completion, all can advance.

Final Izaro and APs.
Again, a safe zone before the fight, where a player can stand until another player kills Izaro. After he is dead, all can advance and get their APs.

Enchant system.
Huge pool of possible enchants, no 'refuse enchant' system if it is worse than your already enchanted item. The chances of improving your item are minuscule, the chances of removing a good enchant if you have one and replacing it with one that is worse are huuuge. The upgrade from merciless to uber for the small pool chants of gloves and boots is tiny and for the most part negligible, while the difference between a merciless helm chant and an uber helm chant, the one with the massive pool, is a clear 50%. Enchanting a new helm with an enchant you want is a minuscule chance. The enchant system is designed for a few people to use a lot and supply poe.trade with enchanted bases or uniques that the majority will search and buy.


So, back to the point. Why do you think a 2,000 post thread of people hating the lab would get GGG to change anything about it?

Eyeopener: Guys, IT WILL DO THE OPPOSITE.

The lab is designed so that few will like it, it is designed in so many ways for a carry service.
The enchant system is designed specifically for you to ignore it and buy your enchanted item from poe.trade.

GGG design first and foremost, always, as an economy stimulant.

You are not supposed to freaking like the lab for crying out loud, lmfao.

A 2,000 post thread showing just how much it is disliked is just going to cement GGG's view that the lab is WAI. Doing what it was designed to do.

The more posts, the more threads, the more people who dislike the lab, the better it is working.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Well, I totally do.

Because Chris also tells us that over half of new PoE players never get past Normal Brutus.

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

So a fancy "no u" is all you have to offer? kthxbai

"

Xtorma wrote:

So I have thought long and hard about this subject, and come to some conclusions that I previously did not consider. ( I am an old retired guy, so I have plenty of time to mull over things, if I want to)

Now the reason why I never considered them, is because, like most people, my reasoning was tainted by personal belief. I believe in artistic freedom and integrity. Make of that what you will, it is a holdover from my university days. That had a lot to do with my advocacy toward not changing the lab.

Once I recognized this flaw ( which is highly subjective, some may see this flaw as instrumental in making a decision) in my reasoning, I decided to try and extrapolate that belief out and take a look at the issue again.

so I went back and read all the threads (quite a feat) and came to the conclusion that most of the arguments for and against the lab were also based on individual bias. So I also disregarded them all.

The next thing I looked at were peoples solutions. There was no real need to evaluate pro lab solutions, because they are all the same. Leave it as it is. The second set of solutions were those proposed by the folks who dislike the lab, for whatever reason. There were quite a few , but they all centered around removing ascendancy points from the lab, as is the topic of this thread.

I am not going to go into all the pros and cons of this solution, because if you take the issue seriously, you have already done that yourself, and once again, those pros and cons will be tainted by personal belief.

What did I come up with? If the only reason I believe that the lab should not be changed is because of my bias toward artistic integrity, then it is a selfish reason to oppose change.

The next thing I considered is how the anti-lab lobby's solution would effect the game as a whole. I was unable to come up with a reason that was not selfish or dependent on my personal beliefs.

Conclusion: Although I personally believe the lab should stay as is, and that changing it is disrespectful to the artists and engineers that created it, removing ascendancy points from the lab will not hurt the game or my enjoyment of it.

"

Thank you for saying and seeing this. Hope it serves as an example for others to see that certain changes will have absolutely no negative effect on the game and the way they play it. Respect for fairness and objectivity towards our problem even if you dont share it.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Well, I totally do.

Because Chris also tells us that over half of new PoE players never get past Normal Brutus.

Why would not even half of the new PoE players never get past normal Brutus? I'm sure there are various reasons but a very important reason would have to be that many people do not enjoy PoE gameplay as much as we do. That is okay. Everyone has their own tastes, likes and dislikes. Since game playing is a recreational activity people should be able to play what they like. Now, let's take a different gameplay and lock critical character development improvements behind this new gameplay. This is exactly what GGG did with the labyrinth. This was a very poor decision that if GGG is smart, will be remedied in 2.4.

"

goetzjam wrote:

GGG doesn't make design choices to "appeal to the masses" they make the game they want and we play it.

"

Xtorma wrote:

...Conclusion: Although I personally believe the lab should stay as is, and that changing it is disrespectful to the artists and engineers that created it, removing ascendancy points from the lab will not hurt the game or my enjoyment of it.

"

Well, I totally do.

Because Chris also tells us that over half of new PoE players never get past Normal Brutus.